Week 3 Discussion — How Was Slavery Built, and What Does an Author Change? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina gave every freeman "absolute power and authority over his negro slaves", and they did so 50 years after the National Park Service's record of "20 and odd" Africans brought to Virginia in 1619. This week you learned that colonial law made slavery lifelong, inherited, and racial over decades, and those facts are not in question; what historians still argue about is how to explain that change and how to read the documents that record it.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Historians debate what drove the shift from indentured servitude toward hereditary racial slavery in the seventeenth-century colonies. Did planters' demand for labor mainly push the law, did ideas about race mainly shape the law, or did the two work together? Take a position, support it with at least one thing this week's evidence shows (the colonial regions and their crops, the 1619 record, or the Fundamental Constitutions), and state the strongest case for a different explanation as fairly as its best defender would.

Option B: Avalon's notes say the Fundamental Constitutions' form of government was framed by John Locke and amended by the Earl of Shaftesbury, but they do not say who drafted the slavery article. How much should that open question change the way a historian uses the document? Take a position, ground it in sourcing and close reading of the pinned fragment, and state the strongest opposing view fairly.

Neither option asks whether slavery was wrong or whether the laws were cruel; the course states those facts plainly. Each option asks a question of explanation or method that careful readers of the same evidence still answer differently. Pick the option you care about, and make your case.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say what you think mainly drove the shift toward hereditary racial slavery, support it with one thing this week's evidence shows, and state the strongest case for a different explanation; for Option B, say how much the open authorship question should change a historian's use of the Fundamental Constitutions, ground it in sourcing and the pinned fragment, and state the strongest opposing view.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (indentured servitude, term of years, hereditary racial slavery, frame of government, Lords Proprietors, contextualization) correctly.
• Quote only the course's pinned fragments, word for word, with the document and its date, and say "enslaved people" in your own voice.
• End with one plain sentence that names what your evidence shows and what it does not.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Write from your own reasoning, in your own words, and keep present-day politics out of your examples.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: state a stronger version of the explanation the poster argued against, point to a place where the poster blurred servitude and slavery or treated 1619 as a finished system, or ask what the poster's claim would need from the evidence that this week's sources do not supply. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B and argue that the open authorship question changes less than it seems. The Fundamental Constitutions are a colonial frame of government made by the Lords Proprietors, dated 1669 in the Avalon Project's heading, and article One hundred and ten gives every freeman "absolute power and authority over his negro slaves". Those words set the colony's rule whoever drafted them. A reader on the other side would say an author tells us whose ideas the article served, and I concede that matters for a biography of the framers. Avalon's notes do not name the drafter, so I make no claim about one. In one plain sentence: the article shows what Carolina's frame allowed enslavers, not who wrote it or how the people it enslaved lived.

Notice how it sources the document, quotes only part of the pinned fragment word for word, refuses to name an author the notes do not name, concedes part of the other side, and ends in one plain sentence. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com